You may be surprised to find that I watched this. In fact, I try to review as much material on this subject as possible. My take is that it relies heavily on the "this has all happened before and perfectly natural" viewpoint. This is becoming a fairly widespread viewpoint because if all one does is investigate the issue up to a point and then stop, it appears to be a pretty strong argument.

It seems to me that there is a perfect storm of misunderstanding about the climate change issue. From my perspective, it's very odd that it's snowing in Florida as we discuss this. That's strange. That's change.

Which brings us to Distraction #1 regarding so-called "Global Warming." Ten to twelve years ago things were clearly warming up. Now, they're clearing cooling off. The term "Global Warming" doesn't really fit if things are going to cool, and so a lot of people drag out making a firm decision whether they think there is or isn't "Global Climate Change." (Newly renamed to avoid the misconception that warming is the only possible outcome.)

Distraction #2 is the fact that the Earth has undergone climate change of this sort throughout it's history. This again allows people to not give it much thought. That's unfortunate, because I can name two pieces of evidence (and have done so in this group in the past) that indicate that, even though this sort of change has happened before, it has *never* happened this fast before. Since some of you don't listen anyway, I won't report that evidence here. Google it if you wish. (Good keywords here being "coral" and "sea tortoises.")

Distraction #3 is the sun. The sun itself has been blanketed the planet with more energy than usual for the last sun spot cycle. This particular fact is often used to counter the argument that humans are changing the weather. To some, one snowflake means "No global warming." To other's an increase in solar energy negates anything that might be happening on Earth. Other's play the cow-fart game. "Cow farts produce more methane than we do!" (Yeah, but why are there so many cows around anyway except to feed the humans that rear them? No one seems to come up with this point when it comes to the "cow fart" part of the debate. These animals would not exist in these numbers without human involvement.)

Distraction #4 is new. It's the politicization of the issue by governments in an effort to consolidate power over developing nations and their own populace. Eight or ten years ago, it was those of us who were vocally promoting the evidence of global climate change that were being shouted down and castigated. Now there has been a shift and the balance of public opinion believes that something, even if they can't quite describe it, is definitely going on with the weather. Now that the tables have turned, there are scientists that don't agree with the conclusions of the IPCC and who are being discriminated against because of it. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean the IPCC is wrong. In fact, my view is that nearly all of the scientists are wrong and nearly all of them are wrong to a conservative degree. I believe that they are underestimating the real threat and how fast it can overtake us.

But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good at math and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems within a couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities will all be looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really will increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep away everything not tied down.

This isn't like someone who's claimed to see a UFO. We have seen the increase in storm intensity that I'm talking about, and we will see more of it. Don't let a snowflake distract you. Don't let a scientist saying that climate has changed before distract you. Don't let politic bodies that seem to act in their own self-interest distract you. Things are going to change more than we'd like them to if we don't do something.

It's too bad that there are enough distractions in this debate to prevent any real progress in terms of avoiding the worst. Sure, it sounds like scare tactics, but what do I have to gain in trying to scare people? Meanwhile, I still suggest planting lots of trees. I mean, what would really be wrong with that regardless of what you believe? They suck up CO2 and they produce oxygen--pretty much just exactly what we need.

> "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > news:tlkl16xila.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx > > You may be surprised to find that I watched this. In fact, I try to review > as much material on this subject as possible. My take is that it relies > heavily on the "this has all happened before and perfectly natural" > viewpoint. This is becoming a fairly widespread viewpoint because if all one > does is investigate the issue up to a point and then stop, it appears to be > a pretty strong argument. > > It seems to me that there is a perfect storm of misunderstanding about the > climate change issue. From my perspective, it's very odd that it's snowing > in Florida as we discuss this. That's strange. That's change. > > Which brings us to Distraction #1 regarding so-called "Global Warming." Ten > to twelve years ago things were clearly warming up. Now, they're clearing > cooling off. The term "Global Warming" doesn't really fit if things are > going to cool, and so a lot of people drag out making a firm decision > whether they think there is or isn't "Global Climate Change." (Newly renamed > to avoid the misconception that warming is the only possible outcome.) > > Distraction #2 is the fact that the Earth has undergone climate change of > this sort throughout it's history. This again allows people to not give it > much thought. That's unfortunate, because I can name two pieces of evidence > (and have done so in this group in the past) that indicate that, even though > this sort of change has happened before, it has *never* happened this fast > before. Since some of you don't listen anyway, I won't report that evidence > here. Google it if you wish. (Good keywords here being "coral" and "sea > tortoises.") > > Distraction #3 is the sun. The sun itself has been blanketed the planet with > more energy than usual for the last sun spot cycle. This particular fact is > often used to counter the argument that humans are changing the weather. To > some, one snowflake means "No global warming." To other's an increase in > solar energy negates anything that might be happening on Earth. Other's play > the cow-fart game. "Cow farts produce more methane than we do!" (Yeah, but > why are there so many cows around anyway except to feed the humans that rear > them? No one seems to come up with this point when it comes to the "cow > fart" part of the debate. These animals would not exist in these numbers > without human involvement.) > > Distraction #4 is new. It's the politicization of the issue by governments > in an effort to consolidate power over developing nations and their own > populace. Eight or ten years ago, it was those of us who were vocally > promoting the evidence of global climate change that were being shouted down > and castigated. Now there has been a shift and the balance of public opinion > believes that something, even if they can't quite describe it, is definitely > going on with the weather. Now that the tables have turned, there are > scientists that don't agree with the conclusions of the IPCC and who are > being discriminated against because of it. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean > the IPCC is wrong. In fact, my view is that nearly all of the scientists are > wrong and nearly all of them are wrong to a conservative degree. I believe > that they are underestimating the real threat and how fast it can overtake > us. > > But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another > distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good at math > and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems within a > couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities will all be > looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really will > increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep away > everything not tied down. > > This isn't like someone who's claimed to see a UFO. We have seen the > increase in storm intensity that I'm talking about, and we will see more of > it. Don't let a snowflake distract you. Don't let a scientist saying that > climate has changed before distract you. Don't let politic bodies that seem > to act in their own self-interest distract you. Things are going to change > more than we'd like them to if we don't do something. > > It's too bad that there are enough distractions in this debate to prevent > any real progress in terms of avoiding the worst. Sure, it sounds like scare > tactics, but what do I have to gain in trying to scare people? Meanwhile, I > still suggest planting lots of trees. I mean, what would really be wrong > with that regardless of what you believe? They suck up CO2 and they produce > oxygen--pretty much just exactly what we need. > > tvp

ive been saying to foliate arid regions for years now too

the seas wont rise as much as many expect because with the higher temperatures, evaporation increases, causing more storms.

<snip > > But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another > distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good at math > and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems within > a > couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities will all > be > looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really will > increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep away > everything not tied down. > tvp > So, Tad, perhaps you could address your expertise in physics to the following question: Why does an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase temperatures, and by how much?

> "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:gia8j7$e6f$1@news.motzarella.org... > > <snip> > > But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another > > distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good at math > > and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems within > > a > > couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities will all > > be > > looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really will > > increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep away > > everything not tied down. > > tvp > > > So, Tad, perhaps you could address your expertise in physics to the > following question: Why does an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere > increase temperatures, and by how much?

increased temps cause more growth, that leads to more trees that die and THAT produces CO2

"La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message news:873n16xmch.ln2@recgroups.com... > On Dec 17 2008 5:28 AM, Lab Rat wrote: > >> "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:gia8j7$e6f$1@news.motzarella.org... >> >> <snip> >> > But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another >> > distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good at >> > math >> > and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems >> > within >> > a >> > couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities will >> > all >> > be >> > looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really will >> > increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep away >> > everything not tied down. >> > tvp >> > >> So, Tad, perhaps you could address your expertise in physics to the >> following question: Why does an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere >> increase temperatures, and by how much? > > increased temps cause more growth, that leads to more trees that die and > THAT produces CO2 > > co2 is a result of higher temperatures, not the cause Skills, you babbling idiot.

Go look at Venus. See any goddamned trees?

CO2 in the atmosphere lets in light but traps infrared radiation (heat)

It's that simple.

Go talk to the least crazy person you hang out with, MAYBE they can explain it to you.

"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net > wrote in message news:nI52l.214$P5.107@nwrddc02.gnilink.net... > > "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > news:873n16xmch.ln2@recgroups.com... >> On Dec 17 2008 5:28 AM, Lab Rat wrote: >> >>> "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:gia8j7$e6f$1@news.motzarella.org... >>> >>> <snip> >>> > But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another >>> > distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good at >>> > math >>> > and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems >>> > within >>> > a >>> > couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities will >>> > all >>> > be >>> > looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really will >>> > increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep away >>> > everything not tied down. >>> > tvp >>> > >>> So, Tad, perhaps you could address your expertise in physics to the >>> following question: Why does an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere >>> increase temperatures, and by how much? >> >> increased temps cause more growth, that leads to more trees that die and >> THAT produces CO2 >> >> co2 is a result of higher temperatures, not the cause > Skills, you babbling idiot. > > Go look at Venus. > See any goddamned trees? > > CO2 in the atmosphere lets in light but traps infrared radiation (heat) > > It's that simple.

If only it was. The size of the venusian greenhouse effect is due primarily to the depth of the atmosphere, and the presence of sulphuric acid. CO2 absorbs at well defined wavelengths. At these wavelengths, there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere already to make it opaque to about 11 9's. More CO2 does not make it more opaque. What it does is to increase the residence time of photons in the atmosphere, by continual emission and resorption of these photons. Eventually, the energy of these photons either escapes to outer space via a random walk, or is converted to different wavelengths by low probability events and then escapes (or is possibly absorbed by a different absorber). To the best of my knowledge, there is no theoretical model that can accurately predict the effect of small increases in CO2 on this process. Climate models tend to be developed retrospectively by extrapolating trends, and if the modellers get the causal relationships wrong, the models are worthless. Not one single climate model has predicted the reversal in average global temps of the last few years. That in itself is enough to question all of the assumptions they are based on. Of course, it doesn't stop anyone with a passing lick of science knowledge having unshakeable faith in their opinions of GW, no matter which side they sit on.

And then you have idiots such as Swillz, who have no clue at all.

> Go talk to the least crazy person you hang out with, MAYBE they can > explain it to you. > >